The Declaration of Independence at 250: Where Are We Now?

We asked two internationally recognized John Glenn College of Public Affairs faculty members, Professor Jos Raadschelders and Faculty Emeritus Charles Wise, to reflect on our nation’s history relative to the Declaration of Independence.

Raadschelders conducts research in and teaches about public administration theories, history of government, comparative government and civil service systems. His research focuses on the structure and functioning of governments at large from a historical and comparative perspective and has written extensively about the study of public administration as academic pursuit.

Wise, renowned for his contributions to public administration education and research, is the founding director of the then-John Glenn School of Public Affairs. He has leveraged his expertise in various academic and governmental roles, serving in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as special assistant for policy analysis in the Office of Legislative Affairs and then as director of intergovernmental relations for the department.

Looking back at our country’s founding through today’s democracy, they contemplated the questions: Where has our country succeeded in meeting the Declaration of Independence goals and values? Where do we need to make improvements?

Here are their thoughts. 

What a powerful statement Cincinnatus, George Washington and Nelson Mandela made when voluntarily stepping away from power. For most of history, public authority and power was invested in a person who was supported by high priests, top military commanders, wealthy merchants and high-ranking bureaucrats such as a vizier. It was only in the Roman Republic that public officeholders operated under rule of law and with a system of checks and balances, ensuring that no individual held unrestrained authority and power. With Emperor Diocletian, the idea emerged that political authority of the state was something abstract, i.e., not invested in a person. The quote oft attributed to King Louis XIV — “L’État c’est moi,” translated as “the state, it is I” or “I myself am the nation” — showed he did not know the classics as well as America’s Founding Fathers did.

The opening lines of the Declaration of Independence contain almost poetic language about human beings created as equal, but the bulk of the text (mainly written by Thomas Jefferson) contains an overview of “injuries and usurpations” of George III that resulted in establishing absolute tyranny over the American colonies. With the rise of authoritarianism across the globe since the 2000s (often also referred to as democratic backsliding), several of these grievances have shown up again in a 21st century context. There is no space to discuss here the contemporary inroads of the executive into the other branches of government, but the main goal and value of the Declaration is the right to self-governance, and that has been achieved. Avoiding the possibility of such transgressions happening in the newly formed USA, the Founding Fathers were the first to develop in the Constitution an institutional framework for large-scale democracy. And so far, this experiment has proven workable.

Should these, together with the various ways in which the present administration seeks to control the Judiciary (directives to Department of Justice, firing judges) and the Legislature (firing missiles in international waters; major budget cuts; unilateral dismissal of entire units in government departments, e.g., USAID) be of deep concern?

Proponents of this theory (who include Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh) point to Article II, Section 1.1 of the Constitution that reads: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Should it come to pass that this theory becomes law via a ruling by the Supreme Court, would the Founding Fathers turn in their graves? They wanted checks and balances of the three branches of government, exactly for fear of absolutism. And showing that the USA wanted no king is what made Washington step down.
    
Another concern: Does the influence that the Seven Mountain Mandate has among various members of the U.S. House and Senate undermine the institutional framework of the USA? This mandate holds that Christian political officeholders should try to control family, religion, education, media, arts and entertainment, business and government (the seven mountains) in order to establish a Biblical Republic. While some Representatives may believe that the Bible provides all guidance needed for sound public policy, they conveniently dismiss the First Amendment to the Constitution concerning the separation of church and state.
    
Large-scale democracy is an experiment, and it will always be because the rule of law cannot defend itself; the rule of law can only be defended by public officials who regard themselves as subject to the law. Having taught the introductory courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels, I am pleased to see that our students are ready to take on the challenge of protecting and advancing democracy.

The Declaration of Independence states principles that undergird American government and society. It has served to do more than that, however. The declared principles precipitated a governance revolution around the world resulting in the establishment of democratic governments in countries where none had existed previously. It is worth reviewing these principles.

The first principle, “all men are created equal,” stood in stark contrast to the government rationales of most countries at the time (and in most autocracies today) where privileged classes were presumed to enjoy superior standing that enabled them to establish the rules of government and society. The phrase underlies the fundamental democratic principle that all citizens are equal before the law and enjoy a voice in determining how laws govern them. Of course, at the founding, the new government did not entirely fulfill that principle, given the existence of slavery and the absence of women’s suffrage. But, it established a premise for the formation of the Constitution, which put in place a set of institutions that engaged democratic processes to fulfill over time more of the aspiration embedded in the concept of equality. Undoubtedly, disputes and debates have occurred over the meaning and operationalization of “equal.” Nonetheless, the meaning has evolved over time and will continue to invigorate and define public policy.

Note that the declared list of rights was not presumed to be exclusive — given the word “among.” The founders of the Constitution immediately recognized the non-exclusivity of the list and amended the Constitution with the adoption of the Bill of Rights to further fill out the meaning of democratic rights. This set in motion a continuing dialogue leading to political action defining and further expanding the meaning of citizen rights and is a basic feature in the functioning of our legislative and judicial institutions. As new developments arise, whether it is the internet, social media, artificial intelligence or something else, the debate over the further definition of these rights will continue and infuse the political process.

The third principle is “That to secure these rights, Governments are constituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This basic democratic principle means that any powers the government has the right to exercise come not from any inherent state power or from those in the government but from citizens. This flipped the presumption of many countries ruled by kings and most autocracies today. In those systems, the state has primacy, and state power is declared to be immutable. In the United States and like democracies, the state has no inherent power — all governmental power resides in the citizenry, and they get to decide which aspects of power they will delegate to the government. Even such delegations are not permanent and can be amended or withdrawn as citizens evaluate what the government does with the delegation. One example is the Constitutional amendment that repealed a previous amendment that prohibited the sale of alcohol. 

The fourth principle: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” To effectuate this principle, after one false start with the Articles of Confederation, the founders formed a Constitution that has provided our governing framework for nearly 250 years. Nonetheless, over time, the citizenry has indeed exercised its right to “alter” the form of government. The direct election of U.S. Senators, the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and women’s suffrage are examples. 

Does American government perfectly represent all these principles? No, but no democracy ever has. However, in fits and starts through our institutions, citizens have continually pursued the aspirations embedded in the principles and will continue to do so through actual governing. I believe that one of the motivations behind students’ decisions to join the Glenn College is that they share such aspirations and seek to assist the country to better fulfill them. The principles of the Declaration are not self-fulfilling. They require strong governmental institutions to make them manifest and improve citizens’ lives, and they require dedicated people who share the aspirations they represent to serve in those institutions. Glenn College students are on the path to fill that need.

Read the latest edition of Public Address, the Glenn College magazine.